Help us reach our end-of-year support goal!

Your support, financial or otherwise, is what keeps the 'Geek online.
Only
23 days
left to get bonus GeekGold!
- learn more.
"BGG is a wealth of information unparalleled anywhere else on the web. And they have neat micro-badges :)"
-
Michael Coniff (WisdomForWizards)

It's not expressly stated, but it's also not impossible. Just play it like normal and rotate the first player marker among the three players.

I prefer these games as 1v1 contests. More players makes for more chaos and that's very not fun for me. But some like it.

If this is the case, and there's no official variant, OP I would be extremely wary if you plan to play this mostly with 3 players. I strongly believe it would not work well. I could see it working ok as a 2v2 game, though.

It's not expressly stated, but it's also not impossible. Just play it like normal and rotate the first player marker among the three players.

I prefer these games as 1v1 contests. More players makes for more chaos and that's very not fun for me. But some like it.

If this is the case, and there's no official variant, OP I would be extremely wary if you plan to play this mostly with 3 players. I strongly believe it would not work well. I could see it working ok as a 2v2 game, though.

What about it wouldn't work from a technical perspective? Set aside preferences.

It's not expressly stated, but it's also not impossible. Just play it like normal and rotate the first player marker among the three players.

I prefer these games as 1v1 contests. More players makes for more chaos and that's very not fun for me. But some like it.

If this is the case, and there's no official variant, OP I would be extremely wary if you plan to play this mostly with 3 players. I strongly believe it would not work well. I could see it working ok as a 2v2 game, though.

It's not a variant... it's on the box.

Says 2-4 players.

Pretty sure you could play more players assuming you have enough dice/cards etc. if you wanted. Game plays the same regardless, just more chaos basically.

It's not expressly stated, but it's also not impossible. Just play it like normal and rotate the first player marker among the three players.

I prefer these games as 1v1 contests. More players makes for more chaos and that's very not fun for me. But some like it.

If this is the case, and there's no official variant, OP I would be extremely wary if you plan to play this mostly with 3 players. I strongly believe it would not work well. I could see it working ok as a 2v2 game, though.

What about it wouldn't work from a technical perspective? Set aside preferences.

Technically? Nothing, I'm sure. But I think it would tremendously change the tone of the game, and not toward the better. I would expect that if the same group of people played this both at 2 player and 3 player, they they would rate 2 player higher.

It's not expressly stated, but it's also not impossible. Just play it like normal and rotate the first player marker among the three players.

I prefer these games as 1v1 contests. More players makes for more chaos and that's very not fun for me. But some like it.

If this is the case, and there's no official variant, OP I would be extremely wary if you plan to play this mostly with 3 players. I strongly believe it would not work well. I could see it working ok as a 2v2 game, though.

What about it wouldn't work from a technical perspective? Set aside preferences.

Technically? Nothing, I'm sure. But I think it would tremendously change the tone of the game, and not toward the better. I would expect that if the same group of people played this both at 2 player and 3 player, they they would rate 2 player higher.

There are plenty of people who enjoy FFA MTG. This would be pretty much the same. Whether or not we like it isn't really relevant. It's a system that works fine. As someone said above, the box is labeled 2-4 players.

We played a 4 player game - everyone for themselves at the weekend and its a lot of fun but some cards are way overpowered the more people are there. For example I had silver snake and then played mist typhoon and killed 8 conjurations and allies and added 8 status tokens to the snake with 1 action.

It's playable at 3 and 4 players. That said, you're looking at way longer match times (I've played 2-2½ hour matches in 4 player), and the game plays more like a game of chicken: "Don't attack me, I've got something nasty in my hand, I'll come after you." Until someone finally snaps, goes all in, and then gets promptly crushed while they're exhausted. So it's playable, but it doesn't reward strategic play in the same way as 2p.

We played a three-player free-for-all Coal-Off at the weekend. For those who don't know, Coal-Off is a casual format where each player gets 30 random cards and 10 random dice and everyone plays with Coal as their Phoenixborn.

Whether by fluke or design, it was very close and heaps of fun. Two of us went into the final round with one or two remaining life, the third player had four (I think).

My only real issue is that it can become difficult to avoid situations where you can't realistically win but whatever action you take is likely to determine which other player wins (i.e. 'Kingmaking').

In my MTG days, I kind of liked the attack to your left format for multiplayer because it helped to address that.